Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 48

Transcription

1 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 48 Lisa J. Ludwig (Oregon Bar No ) Lisa@l2r2law.com LUDWIG RUNSTEIN LLC The Gilbert Building 333 SW Taylor St. Suite 300 Portland, Oregon (503) Attorney for Plaintiffs J. Morgan Philpot (Oregon Bar No ) morgan@jmphilpot.com JM PHILPOT LAW, PLLC 1063 East Alpine Drive Alpine, UT (801) Attorney for Plaintiff (Active Status Pending) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON D. JEANETTE FINICUM; THARA TENNEY; TIERRA COLLIER; ROBERT FINICUM; TAWNY CRANE; ARIANNA BROWN; BRITTNEY BECK; MITCH FINICUM; THOMAS KINNE; CHALLICE FINCH; JAMES FINICUM; DANIELLE FINICUM; TEAN FINICUM; and the ESTATE OF ROBERT LAVOY FINICUM. v. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FBI, BLM; DANIEL P. LOVE; SALVATORE LAURO; HARRY MASON REID; GREG T. BRETZING; W. JOSEPH ASTARITA; STATE OF OREGON; OREGON STATE POLICE; KATHERINE BROWN; RONALD LEE WYDEN; HARNEY COUNTY; DAVID M. WARD; STEVEN E. GRASTY; THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; and JOHN DOES Defendants. Case No. CIVIL COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Page 1 of 48 Civil Complaint

2 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 2 of 48 Plaintiffs, D. Jeanette Finicum, Thara Tenney, Tierra Collier, Robert Finicum, Tawny Crane, Arianna Brown, Brittney Beck, Mitch Finicum, Thomas Kinne, Challice Finch, James Finicum, Danielle Finicum, Tean Finicum and the Estate of Robert LaVoy Finicum, by and through undersigned counsel, individually and together allege in totality and in the alternative: STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. In November 2017, a widely published national news story caught the attention of the American public, when video surfaced of a North Korean citizen attempting a desperate border run for safety. The video showed that when the truck he was driving crashed on the side of the road, the North Korean citizen was aggressively pursued by an armed North Korean government force. He was shot five times, and collapsed. News reports showed that the man survived and made it across the border, to a friendly government on the other side of the line. The story was captivating, because in the American psyche, the idea of being shot in the back by your own government for trying to cross a border is unthinkable. 2. Except, this action brings to the Court a poignant circumstance where this very scenario played out inside the United States, a year and half before the North Korean defector made national news, and it took place on a remote section of road in Harney County, Oregon. 3. On January 26, 2016, at approximately 4:40 p.m., decedent Robert LaVoy Finicum was fatally shot three times in the back, assassination style, by one or more militarized officers of the Oregon State Police and/or FBI. 4. LaVoy had plainly and repeatedly explained he was going to go across the county border, to meet with Grant County Oregon Sherriff Glen Palmer, and invited several of the above-named defendants to come with him. The problem was, Sherriff Palmer had already been identified by several of the above-named defendants as an unfriendly political personality, and as being Page 2 of 48 Civil Complaint

3 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 3 of 48 potentially uncooperative with what has now been discovered to be the illegal, diabolical and shocking internal government scheme and conspiracy to do intentional violence to LaVoy Finicum and other political supporters of Cliven Bundy and those who were visible public critics of the BLM and federal government overreach. 5. Unlike the North Korean who fled for the border to safety in 2017, after LaVoy Finicum was shot in the back he died. As it turns out, he was deliberately executed by a pre-planned government ambush, after he had exited his vehicle with his hands up. Along an isolated section of U.S. Route 395 in Harney County, Oregon, where the only other people within miles, were those who had set-up the ambush, LaVoy Finicum was executed as he walked away from his truck in the deep snow. 6. The murder of LaVoy was plainly unlawful under rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and as also specified below, unlawful under other laws of the United States and the laws of the State of Oregon. It was the result of a brutally deliberate course of action willfully set in place and caused by a small selection of county, state and federal officials who are named as defendants in this lawsuit. These defendants were mentally predisposed and committed to using excessive lethal force, to solve a political dispute. The result has been both haunting and tragic. 7. From the time LaVoy Finicum first became a government target in 2014 for his political actions, through the incident on January 26, 2016, LaVoy had not engaged in a single act of violence. The only violence that took place during that entire span of time, as it relates to anything associated with LaVoy, was on January 26, 2016, and the violence was instigated, aided, provoked, planned and carried out by the above-named defendants. 8. Since the murder of LaVoy Finicum, it has been uncovered that the above-captioned Defendants individually and together, were engaged in a pattern and practice of deliberate Page 3 of 48 Civil Complaint

4 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 4 of 48 conduct, including willful and illegal conduct, which conduct was the cause-in-fact, proximate cause and/or legal cause of the illegal shooting and death of LaVoy Finicum. 9. It has also been uncovered that the above-captioned defendants participated directly with and/or willfully aided and abetted a pattern of widespread and systemic corruption within portions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ), the Department of the Interior, Office of Law Enforcement and Security ( OLES ); and the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ), where state and federal employees engaged in the intentional premeditated targeting of LaVoy Finicum and others (as described in more detail below), because of 1) his association with Cliven Bundy and Bundy family members; 2) his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and 3) his political views and statements regarding land rights and federal government overreach specifically, his consistent political activism and statements that were critical of the BLM. 10. As an example of actions taken by the above-captioned defendants who participated directly with and/or willfully aided and abetted the pattern of widespread and systemic corruption within the FBI and Department of the Interior, each of the above-captioned defendants willfully participated in the spreading of false and maliciously inaccurate information, which information (including law enforcement threat assessments) was known to be false and/or incomplete, and which information maliciously and falsely characterized LaVoy Finicum and others, as a threat to law enforcement and served as an unjustified and pre-mediated pretext that ultimately caused the tragic killing. 11. Defendants Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, James Brien Comey Jr; Greg T. Bretzing, Katherine Brown, David M. Ward and Steven E. Grasty exercised various degrees of supervision, control and authority over the acts and actions that ultimately caused the unlawful execution of LaVoy Page 4 of 48 Civil Complaint

5 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 5 of 48 Finicum, and these defendants not only tolerated known wrongdoings by government employees within their supervision, control and authority, but also actively participated in the rampant corruption which ultimately led to the untimely and unwarranted death of LaVoy Finicum. 12. The lack of oversight and supervision, and these defendants disregard for the constitutional rights of the public, resulted in the wrongdoings alleged herein, including the unjustified shooting of LaVoy Finicum. 13. Multiple federal agents, including but not limited to Department of Interior, OLES and BLM Special Agent Larry Clint Wooten have recently disclosed information and documents showing that the information and run-up to the unlawful shooting death of LaVoy Finicum on January 26, 2016 was, in significant part, the result of a known internal conspiracy within the Department of the Interior that targeted several men associated with Cliven Bundy and events that had previously taken place in Bunkerville, Nevada in April 2014, and one of these targeted individuals was LaVoy Finicum. 14. Defendants Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, James Brien Comey Jr; Greg T. Bretzing, and Harry Mason Reid and other John Doe defendants knew about the governmental misconduct referenced above, including that Department of Interior agents were engaged in deliberate discrimination and harassment targeting supporters [of Cliven Bundy and other] Mormons (which targeting included LaVoy Finicum). 15. At various times from April 2014 through the shooting death of LaVoy on January 2016, defendants who were employees of the FBI, the BLM and OLES conspired with each other and also acted individually in numerous acts to keep secret and cover up information and evidence probative of the cause and evidence related to the unjustified killing of LaVoy Finicum. 16. In addition to the above described conduct by the Defendants in this case, the Oregon Page 5 of 48 Civil Complaint

6 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 6 of 48 State Police, Harney County, Harney County Sherriff David Ward and the FBI used and employed improper police procedures and deliberately employed and carried out a plan without adequate safeguards and communication that ultimately caused the shooting death of LaVoy. 17. In the end, LaVoy Finicum suffered the unprovoked imposition of excessive and illegal police force when 1) he and his truck were fired upon without provocation by the Oregon State Police and/or the FBI at an initial traffic stop on January 26, 2016; 2) when an illegal and unconstitutional Deadman s roadblock was set-up prior to that traffic stop and subsequently used against him after he demanded to see the Grant County, Oregon Sherriff; 3) when he approached the roadblock and without provocation he and his vehicle were fired upon multiple times with lethal force by the Oregon State Police, the FBI and specifically by W. Joseph Astarita; and 4) when he excited his vehicle after successfully swerving to miss a nearby officer and the roadblock, with his hands in the air in a surrender position and multiple, lethal shots were fired at him by the Oregon State Police, the FBI and specifically by W. Joseph Astarita. Finally, the Oregon State Police and the FBI illegally and unconstitutionally used deadly force and caused the wrongful death of LaVoy Finicum by planning, conducting and carrying out the January 26, 2016 events, and ultimately by firing upon and unlawfully executing an American citizen who was seeking the protection of a county sheriff, from what we now know was an internal, corrupt, and politically motivated governmental conspiracy. 18. Since LaVoy s tragic death, facts establishing the shocking internal government misconduct and the detailed internal conspiracy among BLM, FBI and other government officials has increasingly come to light. For example, the December 2016, Larry Clint Wooten whistle blower report documents an internal government investigation that uncovered a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and Page 6 of 48 Civil Complaint

7 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 7 of 48 misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff involved in the official investigation and anticipated prosecution of LaVoy and others associated with events that took place in Bunkerville, NV in April That investigation concluded that law enforcement supervisors, including the John Doe defendants named in this matter, made a mockery of our position of special trust and confidence, portrayed extreme unprofessional bias [and] ignored the letter and intent of the law. The internal investigation also revealed that prominent Department of Justice employees (identified in this complaint currently as John Does), maliciously influenced events both proceeding and following the death of LaVoy Finicum, through extreme personal and religious bias and that when law enforcement agents had been observed to have engaged in unethical/unprofessional actions, misconduct, and potential crimes were deliberately not reported up the chain of command. 19. Finally, Defendant W. Joseph Astarita, who was a Special Agent of the FBI and member of the FBI s Hostage Rescue Team has been federally indicted for his role in covering up activities and events that took place at the side of U.S. Route 395 in Harney County, Oregon on January 26, Specifically, a federal grand jury has charged Defendant Astarita with lying to investigators, making knowingly and willfully false statements, knowing that the false statements were material to the FBI s decision not to call the Shooting Incident Response team to investigate the propriety of an agent-involved shooting. Defendant Astarita falsely stated that he had not fired his weapon at LaVoy Finicum, when he knew then and there that he had fired his weapon. He has also been charged with obstruction of justice, for engaging in misleading conduct towards another person, that is, the officers of the Oregon State Police, by failing to disclose that he had fired two rounds during the January 26, 2017, roadblock incident with Page 7 of 48 Civil Complaint

8 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 8 of 48 LaVoy Finicum. The grand jury has further charged Defendant Astarita with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the communication of information from the Oregon State Police to the Federal Bureau of Investigation related to the possible commission of a federal offense. 21. This lawsuit is brought to obtain relief for LaVoy s surviving heirs, and to ensure that the idea of being shot in the back, by your own government, while trying to cross a county border for protection by bona-fide law enforcement, can return to being what it once was - unthinkable. PARTIES 22. Robert LaVoy Finicum s legal heirs are his wife and children who survived him after his brutal killing. 23. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff D. Jeanette Finicum ( Jeanette Finicum ) was the wife of LaVoy Finicum and direct heir to her husband. 24. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs Thara Tenney, Tierra Collier, Robert Finicum, Tawny Crane; Arianna Brown, Brittney Beck, Mitch Finicum, Thomas Kinne, Challice Finch, James Finicum, Danielle Finicum and Tean Finicum were the children of LaVoy Finicum and direct heirs to their father. 25. Plaintiffs are the heirs, and D. Jeanette Finicum is also the personal representative of the estate of Robert LaVoy Finicum pursuant to relevant state and federal law. 26. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( United States ) is a proper defendant pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C et seq. and pursuant to the other basis for the causes of action listed below, and was at all times material hereto, the employer of Defendants Loretta Elizabeth Lynch, James Brien Comey Jr., Greg T. Bretzing, W. Joseph Astarita and other John Doe defendants to be identified. Timely notice was given of the claims pursued herein, to the United States, pursuant to relevant United States law Page 8 of 48 Civil Complaint

9 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 9 of 48 and relevant administrative rules. 27. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION was a public body and acting arm of the United States through the United States Department of Justice, whose highest federal officials included Loretta Elizabeth Lynch (United States Attorney General) and James Brien Comey (Director of the FBI). 28. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT was a public body and acting arm of the United States Department of the Interior. 29. At all times material hereto, Defendant Daniel P. Love was an agent of the United States Department of Interior, specifically the Bureau of Land Management, and was acting under the color of law and within the scope of his employment. 30. At all times material hereto, Defendant Salvatore Lauro was an agent of the United States Department of Interior, specifically the Bureau of Land Management Office of Law Enforcement Services ( OLES ) Director, and was acting under the color of law and within the scope of his employement. 31. At all times material hereto, Defendant Harry Mason Reid was a United States Senator from Nevada. For purposes of the Westfall Act, Mr. Reid is sued here for actions committed within the scope of his office or employment as a U.S. Senator. 32. At all times material hereto, Defendant Greg T. Bretzing was an agent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation acting under the color of law, and within the scope of his employment. 33. At all times material hereto, Defendant W. Joseph Astarita was an agent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation acting under color of law and within the scope of his employment. Page 9 of 48 Civil Complaint

10 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 10 of At all times herein mentioned, Defendant STATE OF OREGON ( State of Oregon or Oregon ) is a proper defendant pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 2015 ORS and other relevant Oregon laws as a public body subject to civil action and was at all times material hereto the supervisor, employer or controlling entity of the Oregon State Police, Katherine Brown, and other Oregon State Police officers included as John Doe defendants to be identified. Notice of the relevant claims contained herein was timely and properly given to the State of Oregon. 35. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant OREGON STATE POLICE ( OSP ) is the time and title used to refer collectively to the individual Oregon State Police officers involved and described herein, and each OSP officer was at all relevant times herein an agent of the State of Oregon acting within the scope of his employment. 36. At all times material hereto, Defendant Katherine Brown was the Governor of Oregon, and an officer or agent of the State of Oregon, acting within the scope of her office or employment. 37. At all times material hereto, Defendant Ronald Lee Wyden was a United States Senator from Oregon. For purposes of the Westfall Act, Mr. Wyden is sued here for actions committed within the scope of his office or employment as a U.S. Senator. 38. At all times material hereto, Defendant Harney County is the public body organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. Notice of this claim was timely and properly given to Harney County. 39. At all times material hereto, Defendant David M. Ward was a resident of the State of Oregon, and the Sherriff of Harney County, acting under color of state law and within the scope of his office or employment. Page 10 of 48 Civil Complaint

11 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 11 of At all times material hereto, Defendant Steven E. Grasty was a resident of the State of Oregon, and Harney County Judge, acting under color of state law and within the scope of his office or employment. 41. At all times material hereto, Defendant The Center for Biological Diversity was a national non-profit conservation organization headquartered in Tucson, Arizona and acting through directors and executive officers. 42. At all times material hereto, Defendants John Does 1-100, were agents of the United States or the State of Oregon and acting under color of law and within the scope of his or her employment. These defendants are sued herein under fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by those Defendants. Each reference in this complaint to Defendant, Defendants, or a specifically named Defendant refers to all Defendants sued under fictitious names. 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants, including all Defendants sued under fictitious names, was/were the agent and employee of either the United States, the State of Oregon, or Harney County and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was/were acting within the scope of the relevant entity and/or his or her employment. JURISDICTION 44. Claims in this action arise under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C Further, this Complaint raises civil rights Page 11 of 48 Civil Complaint

12 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 12 of 48 claims against individual federal employees and officers pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court therefore has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C [federal question] and 28 U.S.C. 1343(3) [civil rights] and 28 U.S.C [federal tort claims]. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a) because the 42 U.S.C violations, the Bivens tort claims, and tort liability for the state law claims arise from a common nucleus of operative facts. 45. Venue lies in the District of Oregon, the judicial district in which the claim arose, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2) and 1391(e)(1). 46. Plaintiffs do not agree to the applicability or constitutionality of limits on liability or other provisions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act and reserves the right to name additional individual defendants as warranted by law or fact and to challenge any limits on liability set on any of the causes of action listed below. 47. Plaintiffs have complied with all applicable notice and statutory requirements of both the Oregon and federal Tort Claims Acts. STATEMENT OF COMMON FACTS - BUNKERVILLE 48. On the morning of April 12, 2014, LaVoy Finicum was present in Bunkerville, Nevada as part of a political protest against a purported BLM cattle impound operation and other government overreach, in support of Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy and his family, who had been targeted for violence by the BLM and the FBI. 49. In fact, LaVoy had learned that in the two-weeks leading up to April 12, 2014, special agents with the BLM and FBI had targeted Bundy, had surrounded Bundy s house with militarized and armed government snipers and surveillance and had violently engaged two of Cliven Bundy s sons and had threatened violence against other members of his family. Page 12 of 48 Civil Complaint

13 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 13 of LaVoy had learned either the night before or early in the morning on April 12, that the leadership of the BLM and Department of Interior in Washington D.C., had agreed to suspend the operation in Bunkerville, and had announced that it was going to be leaving the area and surrendering the Bundy cattle that had already been gathered. 51. When LaVoy and other volunteers peacefully gathered near the cattle impound area, they and the public discovered that a faction of the BLM and other government employees engaged in the Bunkerville operation had taken up an aggressive, military style posture and were refusing to leave or surrender the cattle. 52. As it turns out, this same faction of government agents, operating under the direction and authority of Defendant Dan Love, were involved in fabricating misleading evidence against Cliven Bundy, had been involved in intentionally seeking to provoke a violent confrontation with Bundy and his supports, and had intentionally created misleading threat assessment documents, and knowingly disseminated false and misleading information to other federal agents and local law enforcement officers about Bundy and his supporters, including LaVoy Finicum. 53. It is now known that the government s own internal investigation discovered that Defendant Love acted recklessly but with the specific direction of a John Doe defendant named above, upon information and belief the BLM Deputy Director to set in motion a chain of events that nearly resulted in an American tragedy with mass loss of life. Further, the government s lead internal investigator concluded reckless and unprofessional conduct with BLM Law Enforcement supervisory staff was apparently widespread, widely known and covered- up, and that other government employees were either too afraid of retaliation, or lacked the character to report and/or correct the misconduct. 54. Mr. Finicum saw first-hand, while he was at Bunkerville, that the conflict between Page 13 of 48 Civil Complaint

14 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 14 of 48 peaceful political protestors and rogue overreaching federal agents, was resolved when the local Sherriff s department intervened, and when the local Sherriff s actions caused the rogue government agents to back down and to disband. 55. In fact, when the local Clark County Sherriff s office arrived on sight in Bunkerville, on April 14, 2014, several BLM and other federal agents saw the Sherriff department as hostile and aligned with the protesters. 56. Law enforcement records show that the Sheriffs office also brought in its own SWAT Team, with its own snipers and other strategically placed personnel who set up counter positions - with the protesters, taking up strategic positions against the federal agents, pointing their guns (that is the Sherriff s SWAT snipers were pointing their guns) at the rogue federal agents and not at the protestors. This sent a clear message regarding the untenable position and conduct of the federal agents who had previously been threatening over a loud speaker to shoot protesters. 57. Mr. Finicum further saw that with the intervention of several Clark County Nevada Sherriff deputies, the threat to protestors, bystanders and the observing public was dissipated, and resolved. He also saw that Defendant Love retreated and released the Bundy cattle and removed all of the federal officers and staff from the Bunkerville operation. Mr. Finicum also witnessed that all harm and potential violence had been avoided. 58. It is now known, that from the evening of April 13, 2014, through at least mid-day on April 14, 2014, Defendant Love had instructed officers under his command including several John Doe defendants, to systematically destroy documents and information, including a massive shredding operation to hide or conceal information prior to abandoning the operation. It is also known that Defendant Love had been on multiple phone conversations with DOJ, DOI and BLM leaders in Washington D.C., with Defendant Harry Reid, and with local DOJ officials Page 14 of 48 Civil Complaint

15 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 15 of 48 expressing his vehement disagreement with their decisions, and that the operational notebook where he claimed to keep records of these conversations and several laptop computers that he used in the course of his duties, have allegedly disappeared form the government s custody and control. 59. Based upon the government s subsequent investigation, it is now known that there was an improper cover-up in virtually every matter that Defendant Love participated in, including Bunkerville and the post-bunkerville targeting of individuals including LaVoy Finicum. 60. It is also known that the government s internal investigation of Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants after April 2014 revealed that they had intentionally planned and carried out the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic operation as possible, and that it was Defendant Love and John Doe defendants purpose and intention to engage Cliven Bundy and his supporters (including LaVoy Finicum) in a manner that constituted excessive use of force, civil rights and policy violations. 61. During the Bunkerville events of 2014, Mr. Finicum was identified (among many others) by Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants, as a target of their activities, and specifically as a target for using violence, meaning Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants intentionally planned to use violence against LaVoy Finicum and others. 62. This illicit targeting of LaVoy Fincium and others who Defendant Love and John Doe defendants viewed as hostile to the BLM and critical of the BLM and DOI, began on April 14, 2014 and continued through January In furtherance of this targeting, both the BLM and the FBI kept an active file on Mr. Finicum. 63. Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants fabricated information, edited, omitted or reported misleading information from this file, and added misleading information to this file, for Page 15 of 48 Civil Complaint

16 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 16 of 48 the purpose of intentionally creating the false impression that LaVoy Finicum was associated with militia and presented a risk of violence to law enforcement, when no threat assessment or legitimate intelligence information supported any such finding or conclusion. 64. In fact, except for the information tainted by the misconduct of Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants, there was no information prior to January 2016 to indicate that LaVoy Fincium constituted a threat or posed the possibility of violent confrontation with anyone let alone federal agents or officers. 65. Further, Defendant Love and several John Doe defendants (including agents within the BLM and the FBI) knowingly concocted a deceptive narrative through the use of false, fabricated and falsely reported information, that LaVoy Finicum and others who were present in Bunkerville and critical of the BLM and DOI (such as Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy) were antigovernment domestic terrorists. These agents knew this information and narrative was false and knew that by labeling Mr. Finicum as this kind of threat, that they had violated government policy, governmental guidelines, and that they were violating the constitutional protected due process and Fourth Amendment related rights of Mr. Finicum. 66. Following the Bunkerville events in 2014 and continuing through January 2016, Mr. Finicum began a YouTube channel where he periodically published educational videos explaining his political views, his views on the US Constitution, and where he described how he viewed the federal government as acting beyond its lawful limits imposed by the Constitution and by federal law. 67. In Mr. Finicum s YouTube videos he was also particularly critical of the Department of the Interior and the BLM. 68. From April 2014 through January 2016, Mr. Finicum also continued operating his own Page 16 of 48 Civil Complaint

17 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 17 of 48 cattle ranch and cattle operation which he purchased in 2008, and which included the grazing of cattle in Mohave County, Arizona and in Kane County, Utah. 69. From April 2014 through February 2017, the BLM and the FBI conducted an extensive investigation of what had transpired in Bunkerville, NV, regarding both the lead up to and the events that took place on April This investigation generated a substantial amount of law enforcement data, information and intelligence within the FBI and BLM, including information on and about LaVoy Finicum. 70. The data, information and intelligence generated by the investigation, included significant and substantial material generated by, edited, amended and/or derived from deliberate acts of Defendant Dan Love and other John Doe defendants. 71. Defendant Love and John Doe defendants deliberately engaged in this conduct, in part, to concoct a deceptive narrative of what happened at Bunkerville, and to paint Cliven Bundy, LaVoy Finicum, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy and others, in a false light with the media, the public, and in any future court actions. The intended false light was that these men, including specifically LaVoy Finicum, presented a threat to federal agents and to the public. 72. Defendant Love and these John Doe defendants knew this information and the narrative they had created about Bunkerville was false and knew that in labeling Mr. Finicum and others in this way, violated government policy, governmental guidelines, and that it violated the Constitutional due process rights of Mr. Finicum and the other citizens involved. 73. Without any warrant, and without any probable cause to believe he had committed any crime, after April 2014 and through January 2016, at various times, Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants monitored and tracked LaVoy Finicum s YouTube videos and related activities online. Additionally, other John Doe defendants, including FBI agents and informants Page 17 of 48 Civil Complaint

18 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 18 of 48 acting under the direction of John Doe defendants; monitored, surveilled and surreptitiously entered into Mr. Finicum s home without his knowledge or consent. 74. DOI BLM Special Agent Larry C. Chuck Wooten, who lead the post-bunkerville investigation for the Department of the Interior and the BLM (including OLES), recently revealed that Defendant Love and John Doe defendants intentionally covered up or otherwise intentionally failed to disclose substantive and exculpatory information that contradicted the narrative created about Bunkerville, Cliven Bundy, and other critics of the federal government such as LaVoy Finicum. Mr. Wooten s investigation also concluded that other DOJ personnel (including John Doe defendants) became aware of the rogue faction of government agents operating under and/or in concert with Defendant Love and also became generally aware of the misconduct described herein, including likely civil rights and excessive force issues and in response the DOJ adopted a don t ask, don t tell mentality and approach and these same federal employees who held high level and supervisor positions over this subject matter intentionally discouraged the reporting of misconduct and further discouraged the reporting of evidence favorable to Cliven Bundy and his supporters. 75. The government s internal investigation has also now revealed that the talking points used by the DOJ to describe what happened in Bunkerville in 2014 were factually incorrect and that John Doe defendants knew of the incorrect information and intentionally failed to take actions to make corrections. Further, the government s internal investigation concluded that the Bundy impound operation was largely a ruse, that the government s official explanation about Bunkerville, Bundy and his followers was the result of cover-ups, half-truths and skewed narrative, and that Bunkerville was in-fact a rogue operation full of widespread governmental wrongdoing from beginning to end, and characterized the whole matter as a punitive and ego Page 18 of 48 Civil Complaint

19 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 19 of 48 driven expedition rather than a legitimate operation of the federal government. 76. The government s investigation also concluded that the truth about what had happened in the run up to the Bunkerville operation, the events of April 2014, and the post-bunkerville investigation would shock the conscious of the public and greatly embarrass the federal government if disclosed. 77. Nevertheless, this false and misleading information, this history of widespread misconduct, and the deliberate activities and actions taken by Defendant Love and the other above-named defendants, contributed directly to the subsequent shooting death of LaVoy Finicum in January STATEMENT OF COMMON FACTS HARNEY COUNTY, OR 78. In November 2015, Cliven Bundy s son Ammon Bundy traveled to Harney County, Oregon to meet with Dwight and Steven Hammond and their family. A brief background is important to understand the relevance of this trip and subsequent events, which culminated in the shooting death of LaVoy Finicum. 79. The purpose of Ammon Bundy s meeting was related to the events in Bunkerville back in April Specifically, at the protest in Bunkerville in 2014, when the protestors successfully rallied public interest, media interest, and the aid of the local Sherriff, they were able to correct the situation where a rogue band of otherwise unaccountable federal agents were engaged in dramatic and illegal overreach. As such, individuals involved at Bunkerville, such as Ammon Bundy, who observed those events first hand, believed that they could use that knowledge and experience to help other individuals and families who were also being unlawfully and unfairly targeted and abused by the BLM and other federal agencies. 80. In November 2016, the story of Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond had been Page 19 of 48 Civil Complaint

20 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 20 of 48 circulating across the national news and social media. On June 21, 2012, the Hammonds were convicted of felony charges for arson on public land after a long and public dispute with the federal government. 81. At sentencing, the Hammond s federal district court judge declined to apply the five-year mandatory minimum sentence, after finding it grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense and also a violation of the Eight Amendment. See 10/30/2012 Sentencing Hrg. at 26:3 6, United States v. Hammond, et al, Case No. 6:10 cr HO. 82. On February 7, 2014, after both Hammonds had completed their sentences from the above case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred in not applying the mandatory five year minimum sentence and in October 2015, the district court resentenced the Hammonds and they were required to go back to federal prison for the remainder of 5 year sentences, and were scheduled to self-surrender on January 4, Beginning in approximately October 2015, and continuing through December 2015, local residents and others citizens began arriving in Harney County, Oregon from across the United States to protest the treatment of the Hammonds. Protesters also spoke out against the general treatment of ranchers and the ranching community, as well as other types of misconduct and overreach by the federal government generally. 84. In November 2015, modeled after actions taken by protesters in Bunkerville in 2014, several thousand people and several concerned organizations signed a NOTICE: Redress of Grievance, raising issues that the Hammond case brought to the surface. The notice was sent to Harney County Sheriff, Defendant David Ward. The notice was also sent to the Harney County Commissioners and Defendant Steven E. Grasty; local Justice of the Peace Donna Thomas, local District Attorney Tim Colahan, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, and Oregon Page 20 of 48 Civil Complaint

21 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 21 of 48 Governor, defendant Kate Brown. 1 Signers included the Bundy family, and eleven other entities and organizations. 85. On November 20, 2015, Defendant Ward (the Harney County Sherriff) published a letter replying to the huge response from American citizens that his office was receiving regarding the Hammond case. 86. By December 30, 2015, media sources were reporting how local citizens had begun forming organizations and joining the protests, and growing concerns about civil unrest in Harney County due to the lack of meaningful response from government officials. 87. In response, Acting United States Attorney Billy J. Williams published a letter To The Citizens of Harney County, Oregon, stating his respect for the rights of these outside individuals and organizations to peacefully disagree with the prison terms imposed on the Hammonds, but explained that no injustice was occurring LaVoy Finicum was not, and never became, a member of any of the above-referenced political organizations and was not, and never became, a member of any militia group. In fact, at this point in time LaVoy Finicum was not in Oregon and had no plans to be involved. 89. As of December 2015, both Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum had used their experience at Bunkerville to educate the public, to advocate their political ideas and to spread the message of responsible citizen activism against federal government overreach. LaVoy had written and published a book on June 20, 2015, and had been conducting small group symposiums on the principles of freedom, and in particular related to western land issues. 1 See (last visited Apr 18, 2016). 2 See Billy J. Williams, To the Citizens of Harney County, Oregon, available at documentcloud.org/documents/ statement-usattorney.html (last visited Apr 18, 2016). Page 21 of 48 Civil Complaint

22 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 22 of 48 Ammon Bundy had similarly increased his civic profile, volunteering his time giving seminars in different public forums elementary schools, cottage meetings, and other public gatherings on the importance of adhering to the structure of the Constitution to resolve political disagreements and on specific land rights issues. 90. By late December 2015, Ammon had met with several government officials in Oregon, including multiple meetings with the local sheriff, Defendant Ward, to try and find a way to protect the Hammonds from further injustice. He was also sharing his observations and judgment to local, county, state and national government leaders that they should do more to acknowledge citizen concerns and that they were not being productive or effective in how they were engaging those citizens who were expressing their disagreements with those leaders. 91. On January 1, 2016, LaVoy received a phone call from Ammon s brother Ryan explaining that large groups of protesters in Harney County, Oregon had planned a protest parade and a show of support and love for the Hammonds and their family. Later that day, LaVoy Finicum traveled with Ryan Bundy and others, more than 700 miles to Burns, OR, so that they could participate in the planned parade and show of support for the Hammonds. 92. What LaVoy, Ryan, and Ammon did not know, is that the BLM and FBI had been monitoring the social media posts of each of them, and had also been monitoring events in Harney County, Oregon. As part of this monitoring, BLM and FBI leadership in Oregon had been coordinating with John Doe defendants and had received the misleading information and individual profiles put together or modified by Defendant Love and other John Doe defendants, after Bunkerville. 93. Further, by this time, the FBI and BLM leadership had used the information and assistance of John Doe defendants, including the misleading and false information created after Page 22 of 48 Civil Complaint

23 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 23 of 48 Bunkerville, to enlist the support and cooperation of Defendant Greg T. Bretzing, Defendant Katherine Brown, Defendant Harney County, Defendant David M. Ward, Defendant Steven E. Grasty and other John Doe defendants. 94. Prior to January 1, 2016, John Doe defendants, with the assistance of Defendant Greg T. Bretzing, Katherine Brown, Defendant David M. Ward and Defendant Steven E. Grasty distributed the false and misleading information and profiles, including false and misleading information about LaVoy Finicum, to other influential government decision makers in and around Harney County. 95. As a result of the false and misleading information being spread by the defendants in this matter, local, state and federal law enforcement created specific plans and operational objectives which plans and objectives were crafted in specific and particular ways to address the false conclusions and false narrative advanced by Defendant Love and now being advanced by Defendant Bretzing, Defendant Ward, Defendant Grasty, and Defendant Katherine Brown. 96. On January 2, 2016, most of the previously unorganized protesters in Harney County participated in a parade and show of support for the Hammonds. 97. In the late morning or early afternoon on January 2, 2016, Ammon Bundy organized a small group of protestors who had been participating in the parade and public protest, and proposed an idea that was designed to increase public awareness of the Hammond s plight, increase political pressure on government officials to address related injustices being perpetuated in Harney County, Oregon by the BLM and other federal agencies, and that would remove the bulk of activity from the center of Burns, Oregon so that the protest would be less disruptive to the average local citizens and businesses. Specifically, Ammon proposed the protest be organized and removed from the town, to the more remote location of the Malhuer National Page 23 of 48 Civil Complaint

24 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 24 of 48 Wildlife Refuge (approximately 30 miles out of town). The Refuge had played a central role in the Hammonds controversy and it was also central to several of the other political disputes in and around Harney County, particularly related to federal government overreach and abuses by the BLM. 98. LaVoy Finicum had no advance knowledge or awareness of Ammon Bundy s plan, and had arrived in Burns, Oregon on January 2, 2016 planning only to participate in the parade and show of support for the Hammonds. 99. In sharing his idea initially, Ammon Bundy asked a small group of individuals to meet with him, and this included one of the local Harney County deputy sheriffs, who openly attended the meeting As it turned out, approximately two dozen individuals attended, including LaVoy Finicum and Ryan Bundy At this January 2, 2016 meeting, Ammon proposed there should be an organized and focused expansion of the protest, and that the effort should be principled, non-violent, and lawful. During the course of the meeting he ultimately proposed a specific plan based upon his opinion, understanding and good faith belief in the principles of lawful adverse possession. Specifically, Ammon proposed that since the Refuge was empty for the holiday, that the protesters undertake an earnest, legitimate and lawful effort to stake and adverse possession claim to the Refuge, which effort should trigger a legal battle where the BLM and other related government agencies would have to prove the lawfulness and legal authority of their activities which had been based out at the Refuge for more than a generation Mr. Bundy and several others present at the meeting had learned that the Refuge was currently unoccupied and that no government employees or officers were present. Page 24 of 48 Civil Complaint

25 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 25 of 48 Accordingly, he encouraged the organization of a responsible group of individuals who would travel in advance to the Refuge, verify that it was unoccupied and commence setting up the necessary requirements for a lawful attempt to establish a lawful claim for adverse possession The idea expressed by Ammon Bundy, and agreed to by participating protestors like LaVoy Finicum, was that among other grounds in support of their protest action, there was a legitimate property law basis for attempting an adverse possession, and that because this was permitted by both state and federal law, it could also be used as a viable method of political protest, and if successful, the occupiers of the Refuge would assist Harney County and its residents in furthering legitimate and lawful aims related to the land they would occupy, and, if unsuccessful, the attempt to establish a lawful adverse possession claim would still focus the protest message, generate necessary media attention, and stimulate a broader national discussion of land use issues and the problem of federal overreach, including questions raised regarding Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution One of the goals of the protest and adverse possession occupation was to acquire legal standing to bring the question of federal land overreach to the federal courts attention or to require the federal government to make solid and legitimate argument in support of its claim of ownership of the Refuge land and with that newly acquired standing, open up a legal forum to raise the growing demands for redress on important land and property rights issues As part of the execution of his idea, Ammon Bundy tried to ensure that the effort to establish a lawful adverse possession claim was legitimate, taking reasonable precautions to ensure that the disseizors (the occupiers) could protect themselves and the property against any unlawful force (which is required by adverse possession law) and that any activities related to that protection if their occupation were orderly and supervised by responsible people who Page 25 of 48 Civil Complaint

26 Case 2:18-cv SU Document 1 Filed 01/25/18 Page 26 of 48 possessed the necessary real life experience to responsibly initiate the adverse possession claim. All this was planned in general accord with what the occupiers believed and understood as long established principles of adverse possession law LaVoy Finicum was one of those who agreed to head out to the Refuge and see if it was going to be possible to set-up a lawful adverse possession claim and related occupation of the Refuge grounds. Upon arriving at the Refuge, LaVoy and others began the process of formally staking a claim, under the principles of law applicable to state and federal adverse possession As part of this adverse possession, the protestors changed the name of the Refuge to the Harney County Resource Center (the adverse possession was being undertaking in the interests of the residents of Harney County, Oregon), they published new signs, changed responsibility for the payment of utilities and services, and took other specific steps the they understood were required by law to establish the legitimate control and use of the Refuge property, as outlined in standard adverse possession law treatises As part of the organized protest, Ammon and LaVoy become the most visible spokesmen for the adverse possession occupation and related protest. They continued to organize, spread their message, invite people to the new Harney County Resource Center, and otherwise work to expand the legitimate use of adverse possession and other lawful methods to investigate and establish other claims throughout the area As they understood the relevant law, the occupation of the Refuge was open, hostile and notorious (these are all specific requirements the protesters understood were the legal Page 26 of 48 Civil Complaint